• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Gingrich Lacks Moral Character to Be President, Ex-Wife Says

That's a stretch.

No. Go back and look at the effort in the lib posts. Or more accurately, the lack of effort. No research, No analysis. Just a rush to post uninformed nonsense a large part of the time.
 
No. It does not. Gallup has already said that this is the most volatile primary since they started keeping track.

Polls, and volatility, are not the same thing as one candidate winning a primary and then another winning the next one.

This has been a wild ride, but it's hardly unprecedented. In 2008, Huckabee won Iowa, and then McCain won by 37% in New Hampshire with Huckabee far behind. And so on.

It might be the most volatile in the polls, but that's not what I was responding to. You were talking about a single candidate (Newt) surging quickly. That happens alot.
 
No. Go back and look at the effort in the lib posts. Or more accurately, the lack of effort. No research, No analysis. Just a rush to post uninformed nonsense a large part of the time.

No, it's a biased opinion on your part.
 
LOL.....Liberals LOVED Palin for the same reason that we love Newt.

Whatever. Remember the "heartbeat away" rhetoric? Not many people think in the same underhanded way you do about politics.
 
LOL.....Liberals LOVED Palin for the same reason that we love Newt.

Out of the 4 left, only Paul and Santorum would be an easier candidate for Obama to beat then Gingrich. Since they don't stand a chance, and if the nominee is still undecided by the Virginia Primary, I am considering changing my vote to Gingrich. I think it would have more impact then just voting for Paul.
 
Yes. Just look to where they aim their mud, and in the case of Gingrich, extra amounts of it. You can go an entire thread and not see a single intelligent post by a liberal with regard to the GOP primary. Its disappointing, as we are here for the sport of debate ..... and instead all we get is fear and spittle from them. But their effort is swamped in fear regardless.

While I am a Gingrich supporter, I am OK if Romney is the guy to challenge Obama. Either one can kick that jackass off the map.


Just curious what you think of Coulters absolute screaming plea that Gingrich simply can NOT be the nominee?

She was just on O'Reily saying that it would be "a lanslide victory" for Obama if Newt wins the nomination....


j-mac
 
Just curious what you think of Coulters absolute screaming plea that Gingrich simply can NOT be the nominee?

She was just on O'Reily saying that it would be "a lanslide victory" for Obama if Newt wins the nomination....


j-mac
I'm not too worried about what Ann says. She hasn't been right about alot of things in past elections. I think she's quite entertaining, just a bit over the top sometimes. :shrug:
 
Anyone post his most recent ad yet?

[video]http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/6d81[/video]

Embedding no worky.
 
Just curious what you think of Coulters absolute screaming plea that Gingrich simply can NOT be the nominee?

She was just on O'Reily saying that it would be "a lanslide victory" for Obama if Newt wins the nomination....


j-mac

She's not alone in saying that, not that it matters. But it is something conservatives should be concerned about.
 
Just curious what you think of Coulters absolute screaming plea that Gingrich simply can NOT be the nominee?

She was just on O'Reily saying that it would be "a lanslide victory" for Obama if Newt wins the nomination....


j-mac

Not too impressed with Ann. She was in the moderate camp from the beginning. Her schtick is bashing Democrats. We know that many in the GOP Establishment are anti-Newt. Judging from how that Establishment was with 8 years of Bush, I'm not much enamored with them.
 
She's not alone in saying that, not that it matters. But it is something conservatives should be concerned about.


I do worry about liberals making the General about whomever is the nominee instead of what it should be about, and that is the failed policies of Obama.

But, in the end that is the goal, and dishonesty of liberals regardless of whom is running, so let's get it on....


j-mac
 
I do worry about liberals making the General about whomever is the nominee instead of what it should be about, and that is the failed policies of Obama.

But, in the end that is the goal, and dishonesty of liberals regardless of whom is running, so let's get it on....


j-mac

I'm sorry j, but it will always been about both candidates running. It matters who you nominate. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Not too impressed with Ann. She was in the moderate camp from the beginning. Her schtick is bashing Democrats. We know that many in the GOP Establishment are anti-Newt. Judging from how that Establishment was with 8 years of Bush, I'm not much enamored with them.

Newt is establishment as well. It's hard to get more established than him. Hell, his political label is also fluid. He can appeal to the moderates with what he deemed "Progressive Conservatism" several years ago*, and he can appeal to self-appointed "real conservatives" by pointing to the Ronald Reagan icon as well as the Speakership. Why that seems particularly damaging, I understand, but do not agree. I prefer my Washington insiders, I like the establishment, and I can enjoy fluidity. For your information, Newt was also helpful for the Bush administration in providing at least one name to help develop the war plan for the Iraq war (particularly its emphasis on substantially small troop numbers in comparison with other proposals). He was good at providing other GOP leaders people that they would be interested in and selling the ideas. Whether or not this is in your nexus for establishment, but many of the names in the previous administration were also at AEI (including the Vice President), which Newt was more or less loosely a scholar for.


*From Think-Tank, "What's a Neocon?"
-Ben Wattenberg: "Neoconservatism -- I think it makes a lot of sense. I think the word has become poisonous to a point that it’s unusable now.
The ideas make sense and, Newt, I’ve been reading your stuff--I’ve been reading your stuff -- you call yourself a progressive conservative. Is that right?

Gingrich: That's a term you could use.

Wattenberg: What is the difference between a progressive conservative and a neoconservative?

Gingrich: Look, my bias, having grown up and deeply influenced, for example, by Irving Kristol’s articles in 1976 on the Stupid Party and The Future of the Republican Party, which were both in the Wall Street Journal -- they were remarkably accurate insights into the problems of the Republican Party.

In my mind, neoconservatives were people who started their lives as liberal Democrats, even to the left of liberal. But who over a period of time largely driven by communism became more and more militant about defending America and about adopting policies that they thought would work in the real world.

And, so, you have a whole generation of people from Irving Kristol to Jeane Kirkpatrick, to Bill Bennett, who found themselves no longer capable of being in the Democratic Party as it was evolving.

Many of them were Scoop Jackson Democrats and many of them came out of sort of a socially liberal, fiscally practical and national security hard line background that was very different than the old Republican Party.

[...]
Gingrich: Let me go back to where I think the neoconservatives I think evolved.

One wing of evolution as in a sense Edward Banfield at Harvard and a whole range of people who said, when you look analytically at the data -- that there were a series of social policies and domestic economic policies, in some ways starting with urban renewal, that were not working.

They were actually making life harder for the poor.

[...]And I would argue in that sense neoconservatism’s great contributions which were -- which -- in welfare reform and to some limited extent in other domestic policy and then in the defeat of the Soviet empire were extraordinarily historic.
 
Last edited:
I do worry about liberals making the General about whomever is the nominee instead of what it should be about, and that is the failed policies of Obama.

That's ironic, because that is what you conservatives did in 2004.
 
I do worry about liberals making the General about whomever is the nominee instead of what it should be about, and that is the failed policies of Obama.

But, in the end that is the goal, and dishonesty of liberals regardless of whom is running, so let's get it on....


j-mac

The election in November will be about whatever the American people want it to be about. And that includes the record and character of the nominees.

that has not changed since the first American voted a very very long time ago.
 
Newt is establishment as well. It's hard to get more established than him. Hell, his political label is also fluid. He can appeal to the moderates with what he deemed "Progressive Conservatism" several years ago*, and he can appeal to self-appointed "real conservatives" by pointing to the Ronald Reagan icon as well as the Speakership. Why that seems particularly damaging, I understand, but do not agree. I prefer my Washington insiders, I like the establishment, and I can enjoy fluidity. For your information, Newt was also helpful for the Bush administration in providing at least one name to help develop the war plan for the Iraq war (particularly its emphasis on substantially small troop numbers in comparison with other proposals). He was good at providing other GOP leaders people that they would be interested in and selling the ideas. Whether or not this is in your nexus for establishment, but many of the names in the previous administration were also at AEI (including the Vice President), which Newt was more or less loosely a scholar for.


*From Think-Tank, "What's a Neocon?"
-Ben Wattenberg: "Neoconservatism -- I think it makes a lot of sense. I think the word has become poisonous to a point that it’s unusable now.
The ideas make sense and, Newt, I’ve been reading your stuff--I’ve been reading your stuff -- you call yourself a progressive conservative. Is that right?

Gingrich: That's a term you could use.

Wattenberg: What is the difference between a progressive conservative and a neoconservative?

Gingrich: Look, my bias, having grown up and deeply influenced, for example, by Irving Kristol’s articles in 1976 on the Stupid Party and The Future of the Republican Party, which were both in the Wall Street Journal -- they were remarkably accurate insights into the problems of the Republican Party.

In my mind, neoconservatives were people who started their lives as liberal Democrats, even to the left of liberal. But who over a period of time largely driven by communism became more and more militant about defending America and about adopting policies that they thought would work in the real world.

And, so, you have a whole generation of people from Irving Kristol to Jeane Kirkpatrick, to Bill Bennett, who found themselves no longer capable of being in the Democratic Party as it was evolving.

Many of them were Scoop Jackson Democrats and many of them came out of sort of a socially liberal, fiscally practical and national security hard line background that was very different than the old Republican Party.

[...]
Gingrich: Let me go back to where I think the neoconservatives I think evolved.

One wing of evolution as in a sense Edward Banfield at Harvard and a whole range of people who said, when you look analytically at the data -- that there were a series of social policies and domestic economic policies, in some ways starting with urban renewal, that were not working.

They were actually making life harder for the poor.

[...]And I would argue in that sense neoconservatism’s great contributions which were -- which -- in welfare reform and to some limited extent in other domestic policy and then in the defeat of the Soviet empire were extraordinarily historic.

A neocon....from wikipedia
According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism[6]:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, politically allied with religious conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.


It fits my world view much better than anything I've seen from either party

 
A neocon....from wikipedia

[/FONT][/COLOR]
It fits my world view much better than anything I've seen from either party

[/LEFT]

Remember, Irving Kristol spoke for Irving Kristol. There are a great many others who have the right to say it is also something else to them, as they are commonly associated with the term anyway.
 
Seriously? You guys are using ex-wives as character witnesses? Im gonna go out on a limb and say well over 50% of divorced men (and women!) would be disqualified if that were the criteria to determine fitness. Lame. Just lame.

How many candidates for President have we ever had that has had 3 wives? Ha,ha, I think his record speaks for itself, he is a womanizer, and a mean spirited one, to boot!

I say, "bring him on" - we'll have a heyday exposing all his warts.
 
How many candidates for President have we ever had that has had 3 wives? Ha,ha, I think his record speaks for itself, he is a womanizer, and a mean spirited one, to boot!

I say, "bring him on" - we'll have a heyday exposing all his warts.

So the big issue in this election is how many wives a candidate has had?

Not debt, over regulation, unemployment, the possibility of a budget?

Rock on!
 
So the big issue in this election is how many wives a candidate has had?

Not debt, over regulation, unemployment, the possibility of a budget?

Rock on!

Nope. But it is just as dishonest to pretend it doesn't matter.
 
Absolutely...That is what I am beginning to see as well...Attacks are great indicators are they not?


j-mac

I have to give you guys credit. You've framed that any criticism of a candidate measn your afraid of him. That makes it hard to criticize, don't you think? And a hell of a lot easier than dealing with the facts concerning his issues. This is almost as good a tactic as blaming the media.

:coffeepap
 
Not debt, over regulation, unemployment, the possibility of a budget?

I haven't heard them spend much time on these issues but, hey we've only had 342 debates so far..................
 
That post wasn't addressed to you.

Why are you responding to someone else's post?

Why not? Many respond to me when I speak to someone else. I never complain. :coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom